[logicallee]

EDIT: I am not defending the policy. I would like to address the specific argument you've used to attack it. (I don't agree with the laptop ban, and I want strong arguments being made against it, not weak arguments.)

---

>At some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always going to want to target aircraft and just live with it.

I would like you to please pay attention for a moment (try to follow my train of thought), maybe I can convince you of something. So, I think that what you've just written is a particularly/incredibly weak argument and regardless of your or my position on the issue I really would like to take a minute to try to convince you not to make this argument again. Make a better argument!

So, suppose that someone said, "At some point we should just accept that ransoms will happen" and so simply stop supporting the FBI and let bad guys kidnap any family of billionaires whenever they want, and to have these billionaires start paying ransoms.

Or you can apply it to anything really. Suppose you said "violent rapes will always happen", so we should just learn to live with it instead of having infrastructure to deal with it.

I don't know - make a list of heinous things people can do to each other, employers to employees, everyday people, whatever. Think of things there are laws and policies against - and imagine someone suggesting that instead, people just learn to live with the problem.

I think there is a large chance people will misunderstand the point of my comment: the point of my comment is that as an argument, "terrorists are always going to want to..." so "just live with it" is a very weak argument. Instead of this argument, a different argument needs to be made.

It simply shouldn't be made on this, or any other subject, I feel. I would like to expand the topic in question to show how problematic the argument is: I think, conservatively, a sum total of $1 trillion (current dollars) will have been spent on researching/curing/innoculuating against/preventing AIDS. Suppose someone suggested that instead of spending $1 trillion on curing it, we simply "learned to deal with it." (Or imagine the same attitude toward cancer research.)

I hope at least this example will show why the argument itself ("we should just accept that there will always be AIDS") is particularly weak. It's simply not true!

I hope I've convinced you to avoid using this argument again. This does not mean other arguments can't be made - just this particular specific variation. Use a stronger argument against bullshit policies!

----

EDIT: as expected people have misunderstood my point. I will give your argument a name: "argument from helplessness." We can't solve it, so we should just accept that it will open happen. Why would it be a given that explosives can always be brought on planes? I am not defending this particular policy, but the argument from helplessness should not be one of the arguments made against it! It's a bad, weak argument, period. It won't convince anyone. Make a better argument!

[pavel_lishin]

> I will give your argument a name: "argument from helplessness." We can't solve it, so we should just accept that it will open happen.

He didn't say that. He said that dirty feet are always a problem, and people will always track dirt into the house, and the solution to that is not to selectively ban muslims from wearing their shoes into your house, or banning Nike sneakers, or people who have recently walked through a particular part of town.

The kidnapping analogy is also faulty; we _have_ learned to deal with it, because for the majority of people it is simply not a concern, and banning arbitrary things doesn't prevent kidnapping any case. (What would we ban? Windowless vans? Rope?)

Also, unrelated to the strength of the various arguments, you come off as incredibly condescending:

> I would like you to please pay attention for a moment (try to follow my train of thought), maybe I can convince you of something.

[logicallee]

The reason I asked them to follow my train of thought is that I feared I wasn't expressing it clearly enough, which given you response and others', seems to be the case.

Basically, if you want to argue against a ban on Nike shoes, one of the worst arguments you can make is what you just said: that people will always track dirt into the house no matter what you do. (It's a bad argument that won't convince anyone.)

The reason that's a poor argument is that it's simply not true. There actually really are ways to keep people tracking dirt into the house - so if you want to argue against banning nikes by citing a false fact (the false fact that it's inevitable that dirt will be tracked in), you've weakened your argument.

Let's take an example: suppose someone wanted to ban shoelaces, because it's possible to tie up a pilot with them. This is a super easy ban to argue against! It's a terrible ban! But the worst argument you can make is "People will always tie up the pilot and copilot, and banning shoelaces won't stop this." Terrible argument that doesn't achieve the result: convincing someone that the ban is stupid. (The argument is terrible because it's not true. For example, locking the cabin door might easily prevent someone from tying up the captain and copilot: therefore it is simply false to say that people will always tie up the pilot and copilot.)

If you don't think it's a poor, ineffective, argument that won't convince anyone, then go do a field report: go find someone that agrees with the policy (I don't), and convince them using this weak argument that doesn't work. Go ahead! The argument is a bad one that doesn't work, won't convince anyone, and I have no idea why you're defending it. In essence, it's a logical fallacy, like arguing that -2 < 3 because if you square both sides you get 4 and 9 respectively. The reason it's a bad argument is that it would also work to prove -2 > 1 which is false.

I've used your own example with the Nike sneakers, so I hope you'll try to at least see my point of view. To make it explicit: some fitness centers (gyms) ban outside shoes. If they were to institute a policy that you can't enter the changing room if you're wearing Nikes, only formal dress shoes, then it is a weak and ineffective way to argue against this policy to write "But people will wear their outside shoes no matter what you do". Because this is false. (For example, having to show your gym shoes upon entry might be sufficient to keep anyone from working out in their outdoor shoes.)

I've worked with your example and I hope you can see the distinction I am making. I'm trying to help refine arguments to something that works. I hate this stupid ban as much as everyone else here and want it argued against effectively. Thanks.

[roninb]

Just as a heads up, this board is often extremely logical. So using the argument "You won't win people over" around here, being filled with people who care much more about being technically (read: the best kind of) correct, is probably going to not get you very far (if anywhere, at all).

That said, I think you're missing the point most others are making, which is that your argument is missing the point others are trying to make, "where there's a will, there's a way" or perhaps more aptly, "prohibition doesn't work" as we've seen countless times through history.

edit: I also think at the heart of what everyone else is getting at is perhaps anger at the fact that while they feel their argument is perfectly logical ("prohibition doesn't work"), they know, like you, that it's not very convincing (again, look to history, we've had a 4 decade war on drugs after several failed prohibitions throughout our country's history that did all of nothing for stopping revenue streams and usage of prohibited substances).

[pavel_lishin]

> But the worst argument you can make is "People will always tie up the pilot and copilot, and banning shoelaces won't stop this."

Nobody ever, ever made that argument. The argument was that people will always try to strangle the pilot. People will always have dirt on their shoes. There is a way to keep my carpet clean, but banning Nikes won't do it.

You will never get the percentage of people who want to commit terrible acts to zero, so at a certain point, you hit the point of diminishing returns so hard that it not only gets you literally zero gain, it can actually start to increase your risk.

[logicallee]

Okay, in your own words please rephrase what the OP meant with "at some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always going to want to target aircraft and just live with it".

What does "just live with it" mean, to you? I don't have to just live with the fact that there is probably at least 1 cannibal in the world (out of 7 billion people), today, who would probably love to cook and eat me (or eat me raw).

So the literal reading (about living with the fact that there are people "wanting to") doesn't make any sense. It's not an actual statement. So what does "and just live with it" mean, to you?

[pavel_lishin]

> Okay, in your own words please rephrase

I have, several times. I think I've explained this well enough in the past, and I'm not sure rephrasing it will do any good, so this is my last attempt:

    The selective laptop ban makes no sense
    and is not statistically likely to decrease
    the chances of an airplane being bombed.

> I don't have to just live with the fact that there is probably at least 1 cannibal in the world (out of 7 billion people), today, who would probably love to cook and eat me (or eat me raw).

I mean, you do. There are absolutely cannibals in the world, certainly more than one, and they would absolutely not turn up their nose at the idea of eating you.

So how do you live with it?

The answer is, by realizing that there are safeguards in place already to largely prevent this from happening.

There is no need to ban passengers boarding at Jacksons International Airport from bringing plastic cutlery and napkins along with them, despite the fact that they could conceivably use them to eat you. Such a ban would be at best a complete waste of time, money and manpower, and would be pretty racist at worst.

[logicallee]

That rephrasing has zero to do with learning to live with airplanes being bombed. Zero.

We're done talking about OP, and we're now just talking about your ideas, which I don't disagree with. So we're not disagreed about anything.

[rplst8]

> So, suppose that someone said, "At some point we should just accept that ransoms will happen" and so simply stop supporting the FBI and let bad guys kidnap any family of billionaires whenever they want, and to have these billionaires start paying ransoms.

No one is saying we shouldn't attempt to stop an attack that is known, or that we shouldn't investigate who carried out and authorized an attack and seek justice. The primary role that government serves to the people with respect to crime is the serving of justice. Protection from all things harmful and crime prevention are not guaranteed. Anyone trying to sell you such guarantee is either lying or delusional.

The more we realize we are responsible for our own well being, take responsibility, and keep a watchful eye, the safer and better off everyone will be. When it's finally understood that people will protect themselves and deny a terrorists ability to carry out a plot, the less of these monsters we'll have to deal with.

[logicallee]

The part that you say "nobody says" is what I took the GP to be saying, roughly... Obviously we can expand your "an attack that is known" to preventing other kinds of attack - for example if a $50 device beeps whenever there's an explosive (it sniffs the air as passengers walk past it) then it can prevent unknown attacks and I'm sure you would agree that it should be installed rather than "accept" that passengers will always bring explosives on planes. That's all I mean -- other arguments are fine, just not the argument from helplessness. It's a weak argument and won't convince anybody.

[rplst8]

> for example if a $50 device beeps whenever there's an explosive (it sniffs the air as passengers walk past it) then it can prevent unknown attacks and I'm sure you would agree that it should be installed rather than "accept" that passengers will always bring explosives on planes.

Of course. Passive detection of illegal substances is fine by me. But making me partially disrobe, manual searches of by bags, and prevention from travel if I do not submit to the coercion is wrong and a violation of everyone's rights. A "bomb" detector is no different from a smoke detector. It's not a search (as long as it isn't also used to identify people by smell and track their movements).

[paulajohnson]

> The more we realize we are responsible for our own well being, take responsibility [...]

How, exactly, am I supposed to "take responsibility" for spotting someone with a hidden bomb when I get on an airplane?

[russdpale]

You can always not fly! Seems silly to be so scared.

[AstralStorm]

Report credibly to the stewards. Also say why you think it is a bomb. Provide credentials.

[Cpoll]

Aren't you committing an "argument from consequences"?

The argument most people are making is that the TSA is security theatre, and they're not stopping any bad guys.

I don't think anyone would argue if the TSA's methodology had any basis or evidence of efficacy. Usually the stories take on some ridiculous aspect: Someone has handled some chemicals that set off the detector, and they're interrogated for twenty hours - can't they just check the luggage for a bomb?

[pieter1976]

Where does this end? After the liquid ban everything was banned from aircraft accept passport and boarding pass for a while. Imagine that becomes the norm.

Then terrorists realise that the rectum has a capacity of 500 to 800ml and decide to stuff a bomb large enough to puncture an aircraft wall in the anus and then remove it in flight.

[logicallee]

I don't know where it ends (obviously I don't agree with the laptop ban), but I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that it's a foregone conclusion that passengers can and will bring explosives on planes. It's simply not a strong argument, I feel. It won't convince anyone.